Decreasing BSS/OSS “integration tax": Part 2 – IP and middleware make things better

This BLOG post is the second in a series of short articles on the changes in BSS and OSS architectures arising from the changing underlying data communications, middleware, and data modeling software technology. In the last posting, we looked back on the early days of OSS and BSS – in the 1970s and early 1980s when only huge systems, architected by the same group, and implemented and tested by a single vendor, could hope to work together.

During the 1980s and 1990s, while the technical world was focusing on the X.25 standard for system interoperability (and good old Bell Labs, never an organization to go with ‘good enough’ created its own improved version, BX.25), the TCP/IP protocol was coming into its own. It was not endorsed by any standards organization. It wasn’t owned by anyone. The group that agreed to it documented the agreements by something they call RFCs – ‘Request for Comments.’ But it was simple. It was open. And it could be easily implemented on a wide variety of hardware. It became the de facto worldwide standard, essentially solving the problem of system interoperability at the lower levels of the protocol stack.

At the same time, ‘middleware’ raised its head in the BSS/OSS industry. Vendors such as TIBCO had their software ‘busses’ that could be implemented to bind together software systems. All you had to do was to build to their API (and have an agreed-to mapping of the internal data models of the various systems to an intermediate language, with interfaces to the API implemented in every system) for systems to ‘talk’ together. The TMF created its NGOSS architecture around this ‘bus’ concept, and many modern systems were built around one of the busses available in the market. This made integration MUCH easier and cheaper, as seen below. For a mere half to one million dollars you could have a systems integrator interface two systems together.

The effect was that systems that were formerly ‘islands’ of automated systems started to be hooked into each other, creating ‘flow-through provisioning’ and an end-to-end ‘trouble process,’ among other work flows. So, if you wanted a good multi-OSS or BSS system, you would go to a systems integrator (SI), choose a bus, choose the new OSSs you wanted to implement, decide which legacy systems needed to be hooked into, and sit back and wait a couple of years for the SI to do its magic.

Mark H Mortensen

Decreasing “integration tax" has radically changed BSS and OSS architectures and business – and will change them more in the future [Part 1]

This BLOG post starts a series of short articles on the changes in BSS and OSS architectures arising from the changing underlying data communications, middleware, and data modeling software technology. Today we look back on the early days of OSS and BSS in the 1970s and early 1980s.

During my 30 years in the telecoms industry, I have seen a radical change in the cost of developing interfaces among BSSs and OSSs. Before the wide adoption of standard data communications protocols such as X.25, the development costs of interfaces between systems was easily $500,000 or more. Then multiply that by the old magic 2.7 to get the cost to the customer, and it meant well over a million dollars. The adoption of data communications interfaces such as X.25 and the old IBM FCIF (used in TIRKS and other IBM 3270-era systems) dropped the costs somewhat. But it only really attacked part of the problem. I recall once in my testing systems days (SARTS, for the old-timers out there) one US RBOC customer who wanted us to implement an X.25 interface on the system. When quizzed as to why they wanted it, they replied that they wanted to ‘plug it into’ another system and exchange data in real time. They were quite disappointed when they were informed that implementing a data communications protocol in two different systems did not mean that they could ‘talk’ together – you needed to actually do some more work. We also had another problem in those days – the X.25 protocol stack implementation was different in every different computer hardware system. So every time you offered the software on a different hardware platform, even from the same manufacturer, you had to re-implement the protocol stack.

The effect on the architecture was that only huge systems, architected by the same group, and implemented and tested by a single vendor, could hope to work together. Interfaces between disparate systems were few – and very expensive to build and maintain.

Next time – IP and middleware make things better.

(As usual, comments welcomed.)

Mark H Mortensen

Intelliden - Evangelism to White-Shirt-Button-Down IBM

In the last BLOG posting here, I identified a number of companies who were attempting to "cross the chasm," including one, Intelliden, that has now been purchased by IBM for an undisclosed sum. Intelliden's products aimed at configuration management of telecoms equipment. Looks like IBM is taking a product concept that is still evangelistic in the telecoms space, but proven in the IT space, and repositioning it.

This kind of crossing of the boundaries of IT and telecoms is going to be happening more and more, as the equipment and software that provides telecom services evolves to be just like that in a data center - optical transport equipment with Ethernet interfaces, routers, computers, SANs and specialized software for voice, data, video - and OSS/BSS functions!

Evangelistic OSS Products - An Introduction

As anyone who has read the book Crossing the Chasm by Geoffrey A. Moore (or even heard about the concepts) knows, there is a point at the early evolution of a new product that is in a new space when the company has to do an "evangelistic sell." No one knows that they need that product (i.e. there is not an established market with a set of vendors providing somewhat the same thing to a defined set of customers). But a few brave customers (usually ones who love technology, in the case of OSSs and BSSs) are willing to take the gamble - these Moore called the 'innovators.' Then there is a gap (or 'chasm') as the 'early adopter' customers, usually looking for competitive advantage, begin to implement the product and see if it lives up to its potential.

Many products fall into that chasm, never to be seen again - but those who cross the chasm usually begin to experience that heady 'hockey-stick' sales curve that companies crave.

In a series of BLOGS this year, I'm going to take on the task of describing some of whom I see as the companies and products in the BSS/OSS space who are crossing the chasm, or aspiring to.

I'll be covering companies like:

• Aria, attempting to change the way CSPs plan networks
• Celona, with new techniques for data migration
• Intelliden, tackling configuration management of CSP equipment
• Tribold, with a master catalog that seeks to dramatically decrease the time for new services to be introduced in BSSs
• Ontology, looking to bring the benefits of new bottoms-up patterning technology from biology to telecom to make database interfaces easier
• RateIntegration, bringing real-time marketing information to CSPs

Others have been suggested, such as Irdeto, GreenPlum, OSSTree, RiverMuse, and Quantellia, which I'll take a look at.

Comments and suggestions welcomed.